Monday, April 21, 2008

Smoothstone says “changing the lexicon restores truth to the Middle East narrative.” He is exactly right. We have not only to change the lexicon in the ME, but in every place the multi-cults have distorted reality with their use of euphemisms and their cries of ‘racist’ or ‘intolerant’ when someone tells the truth.

It helps to create a positive reality by using constructive terms. Conservative Swede once referred to himself as a "kafircon" -- a term that is humorous and much better than "islamophobe." To affirm what is good about *us* is much more generative of creativity than to point to the things we fear.

I fear the undermining of Western culture by an aggressive worldview founded on a principle of scarcity; a nomadic, primitive, tribal mentality arising from a harsh desert environment. Tribal beliefs (even those adapted by the politically correct to designate who is acceptable and to exclude those who are not) weaken the ties that bind community. And the sense of community is essential to our survival as civilized beings.

For his example blogger Smoothstone uses part of this editorial from last week’s Jerusalem Post writer, Michael Freund:

Amid all the doom and gloom that seems to fill the news of late, here is a neat little statistic that offers a glimmer of hope.

Despite years of relentless propaganda and concerted media indoctrination, a majority of Israelis continue to hold patriotic views.

In its latest monthly peace index survey for March 2008, Tel Aviv University’s Steinmetz Center for Peace Research found that, by a wide margin, the majority of Israeli Jews view Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the Jewish people, as “liberated” rather than “occupied” territory.

Summarizing their findings, the researchers noted that, “We were surprised to discover that even though, over the years, the concept of ‘occupation’ has become more common both in the political discourse and the media, today a majority of the Jewish public defines the West Bank as ‘liberated territory’ (55%) and not as ‘occupied territory’ (32%).”

This is an astonishing and welcome bit of data, for it demonstrates unequivocally just how strong and resilient the bond still is between the people of Israel and their land.

Even with the onslaught of negative portrayals of Jewish settlers over the years, and the persistently poison pens of various Israeli journalists, the bulk of Israelis have remained immune to the venom.

They continue to see this land as ours and have not allowed the mainstream media’s cynicism and disapproval to cloud their most basic of instincts.

No less interesting were several other findings contained in the survey, which further underline the durability of the public’s patriotic leanings.

By a margin of 57% to 23%, or more than two to one, Israeli Jews oppose a return to the pre-1967 borders, and a clear plurality (47% vs. 40%) now agrees that the Oslo peace process was “a mistake.”

Not surprisingly, the authors of the survey suggest that “the hard-line positions that most of the Jewish public now takes” are attributable to “pessimism”, as though recognizing that Oslo has failed is merely a function of mood swings, rather than taking a cold, hard look at reality.

To be sure, not all the results were encouraging. The poll found that strong support remains for the establishment of “two states for two people” despite the Palestinians’ ongoing failure to curb terror and halt anti-Israel incitement and violence.

But even there, a dose of realism has begun to creep in. For the results also showed that nearly three-quarters believe that even if an agreement is signed with the Palestinians, “it will not, from the Palestinians’ standpoint, end the historic conflict with Israel.”

In other words, deep down, most Israelis acknowledge that the thrust of the conflict with the Palestinians is not about land, but about our very existence.

What are we to make of all this?

Consider the following: if more than 40 years after the Six Day War, just a third of Jewish Israelis consider the territories to be “occupied,” then it means that however vocal and strident the Left might be, they remain nothing more than a small and unpersuasive minority in this country.

For all the sympathetic coverage, reports, articles and editorials that have amplified its position over the years, the Left has clearly failed to do more than dent the nation’s underlying attachment to places such as Hebron, Bethlehem and Shiloh.

This represents a colossal failure on their part in the battle for public opinion. While they may have succeeded in altering the reality on the ground by establishing the Palestinian Authority and supporting the Gaza withdrawal, the Left has not succeeded in wearing down our faith.

And, as Menachem Begin pointed out in The Revolt, “Faith is perhaps stronger than reality, for faith itself creates reality.”

The findings of the peace index also point to a tremendous opportunity. They underline the fact that Israelis are not “suicidal” or “lemmings,” as some on the far right are wont to believe. Rather, they continue to hold on to a healthy set of nationalist values and beliefs, however unpopular these might be among our media elites.

Perhaps that is precisely why the media does its best to shut us up and shut us out.

Indeed, just think what would happen if Israel had a more impartial media, one that actually gave equal time and respect to those who remain loyal to the Land of Israel.

Imagine the difference it would make if there were one - even one! - major media outlet that allowed Israel’s right to air its views alongside those of the left.

It would, quite simply, revolutionize the entire political system.

In the United States, media baron Rupert Murdoch tapped into the disconnect between the liberal media and America’s conservative impulses by creating Fox News Channel. Within a few years, Fox had rocketed to the top of cable news ratings, leaving CNN and MSNBC in the dust.

In an October 2006 interview with the Financial Times, Murdoch explained the secret of Fox’s success. He said, “The real story about Fox is the business story. The real thing is by being fair and balanced - by putting on both sides all the time - we really have changed the political equation in this country.”

“People think we’re conservative,” he added, “but we’re not conservative… I mean that it has given room to both sides, whereas only one side had it before. I think people are responding to that very strongly.”

There is no doubt that Israelis would too. Just imagine if Israel had its own version of Fox News - balanced yet patriotic, fair yet loyal. It would further energize the country’s underlying nationalist and Zionist proclivities, and possibly even invigorate the near-dormant political right.

Hence, establishing such a channel should become a top

priority for those who wish to preserve the land of Israel and protect her from harm.

For, if the peace index teaches us anything, it is that the right must never make the mistake of writing off the Israeli public or giving up on them as a lost cause.

The public can see through the mainstream media’s left-wing political agenda, and they are obviously hungering for something new and different.

Now is the time to do something about it. And a good place to start would be to change the channel, and give the Israeli people a media they can be proud of.

One that isn’t ashamed to wave the flag and boost the country and its values.

What a breath of fresh air that would be.

The faith I point to has nothing to do with religiosity or with organized denominational faith.

When Menachim Begin said “faith is perhaps stronger than reality, for faith itself creates reality,” he was not referring to the cult, the code or the creed of the varieties of Jewish religious belief. He meant the commitment we have as human beings in the project of fostering what is best in ourselves. That exploration is more crucial than anything merely technological In fact, the engine of our endlessly creative work in technology is simply our human nature. What has so distorted extremist Islam is its refusal to allow scope for this basic imperative. They are reduced to finding new and creative ways to kill.

For the sake of this particular discussion, I don't care if we just randomly "happened" or if there is some larger force, which spun us out of clay and set us going. The important truth is that we ourselves still spin miracles out of gossamer. Isn’t that amazing?

Meanwhile (indulging in a little "racist" profiling), I would love to see an Israeli channel similar to Fox News. For certain, shortly after its creation there would appear a second Israeli-type Fox News, one that could argue with the first version. Whatever else they might be, those would be lively places, full of sparking quarrels, rhetoric and alarums -- all the better for broadening our knowledge and experience.

The world would be a richer place. Why, I might actually buy a television.

15
comments:

When Menachim Begin said “faith is perhaps stronger than reality, for faith itself creates reality,” he was not referring to the cult, the code or the creed of the varieties of Jewish religious belief. He meant the commitment we have as human beings in the project of fostering what is best in ourselves. That exploration is more crucial than anything merely technological. In fact, the engine of our endlessly creative work in technology is simply our human nature. What has so distorted extremist Islam is its refusal to allow scope for this basic imperative. They are reduced to finding new and creative ways to kill.[Emphasis Added]

Dymphna, what a wonderful and heartening article. Especially so after the constant self-imposed reverses brought about by Olmert. Thank you so much for taking the time to post this.

I concur with Begin and yourself about the human ability to alter our own destiny. It is one of the things that continues to bolster my agnosticism. Comprehensive predestination simply does not work. Even Darwin himself questioned the ability of God to foreordian the destination of every single raindrop.

SIDEBAR: Several weeks ago I ran across chap who was speculating aloud upon how Darwin was an "@&*%$^# atheist!" He was stunned into silence when I explained to him that Darwin was a deeply religious man who had originally studied for the ministry. It was more than a little gratifying to correct someone's unfair and wrongheaded lambasting of such a towering scientific giant. (I highly recommend Irving Stone's superb book on Darwin, "The Origin".)

Over the years, on numerous ocassions I have had to completely reinvent or reconfigure my life. I call it "synthesizing reality". How gratifying to read your own elegant synopsis of this same concept. I firmly believe that your appraisal of Islam's overwhelming failure as a spiritual and social hierarchy is right on the money. In fact, I believe that your assessment doesn't just apply to Muslim extremists but to Islam as a whole.

the project of fostering what is best in ourselves

Finally, I'll take the liberty of correlating this concept to an ancient Jewish term, tikkun olam. It can be broadly interpreted as "repairing the world", a notion that I particularly like. I sincerely believe that fostering what is best in ourselves helps to make this world into paradise. Is my unshakable belief in the perfectability of the human spirit showing? Good!

I think it is not far off the mark to say that the later Darwin was, if not an atheist, at the very least an extremely disaffected agnostic. While, as you say, he did indeed study for the ministry as a youth, I think it is wrong to suggest that once he had begun his transformative intellectual journey he remained, in any sense, "deeply religious". His is a splendid example of what happens to an intelligent mind when painstaking, rational inquiry into actual workings of the natural world collides with religious dogma.

Indeed, the tension between his vanished faith and the persistent religiosity of his devout wife Emma - who feared for his immortal soul - is thought by some to have contributed to his long delay in publishing On The Origin of Species.

Malcolm Pollack: I think it is wrong to suggest that once he had begun his transformative intellectual journey he remained, in any sense, "deeply religious". His is a splendid example of what happens to an intelligent mind when painstaking, rational inquiry into actual workings of the natural world collides with religious dogma.

I'll not argue that Darwin's findings may have eroded his religiosity. However, if a theistic person were able to shed the Church's usual overburden of dogmatic fundamentalism, I would hope such an individual might see evolution as God's most perfect way of "minding the store" while He is busy with other matters (like spanking the crap out of Allah).

Anyhoo, as a scientific person, Irving Stone's marvelous account of Darwin's trip around the world and the dedicated naturalist that emerged from within this great man garnered my deepest respect for this scientist. Additionally, Emma's devotion and abiding love for Charles was also quite moving. All in all, an amazing story regarding how one of the most significant theories of life on earth came about.

All in all, an amazing story regarding how one of the most significant theories of life on earth came about.

No argument there, Zenster, though I do think that by middle age, Darwin was pretty much done with belief in God altogether.

I have recently read another excellent book about Darwin, one that picks up the story after the Beagle voyage was over. It's called The Reluctant Mr. Darwin, by David Quammen, and focuses on exactly what took the man so long to publish his ideas.

My favorite get-the-terms-right contribution is 'Islamophile' - a person who for reasons of power and status speaks nicely about Islam, usually without having bothered to learn anything real about the religion. And thus being set up completely, of course.

Another is 'Totalitarian', for a system that dictates the behaviour and opinion for everyone in that system. Fascism was one such system, as was Communism, and currently Islamism. It's not meant to be derogative, just descriptive.

The real danger to Israel is not Hamas or even Hisbolla ,but rather the DEMOGRAPHIK danger. Israel urgently HAVE to get rid of as much as possible of the Muslim population . The best way would,ofcourse, be to somehow make them all moove to another muslim country,prefarably as far away as possible. It is not impossible that this might be accomplished in the future, but the problem is here and now. 2 small palaestinean states ,is a realistic way to make sure that millions of muslims does NOT somehow become part of Israel. Ariel Sharon choose this strategy after having tried many other possibilities. You don't have to be a leftwing apologist to believe that Ariel Sharon made one last brilliant and SURPRISING moove against our enemies. By evacuating the gaza strip, he gave the Hamas just enough rope to hang themselves; in the traditional palestinian way, they just HAVE to shoot themselves in the foot , by shooting rockets acros the border. Before or later they will cause the IDF to retaliate in a way that will lead to their destruction .Someting similar to what happened in Grozny, Checheniya. The good thing about a palestinean state is ,that you can have war with it.. What will happen in the west bank is not clear yet , but it seems that the security barrier will turn into a de-facto border with a second de-facto palestinian ministate. The setlers might therefore serve their country and themselves better by finding somewhere to settle on OUR side of the border. We deffinitely need them there , because the borders villages are going to be a tough place to live in the foreseeable future.

ole: The best way would,ofcourse, be to somehow make them all move to another muslim country,prefarably as far away as possible.

As Islam becomes increasingly overt in its refusal to pacify or reform, many nations will likely resort to forced repatriation or reverse immigration.

Another GoV denizen posted the following figures yesterday and they bear repeating:

--------- Begin Excerpt ---------

WHAT ISLAM ISN’T Dr. Peter Hammond

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.’

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

--------- End Excerpt ---------

The numbers do not lie. EVERYWHERE Muslims go, they bring along with them their pestilential shari'a and jihad with them. No Muslim majority nation makes any pretense of religious freedom or equal rights for women.

The above figures are so consistent and damning for Islam that it is difficult to imagine anything other than eventual mass expulsion or a Muslim holocaust. Given Islam's previous track record and current course, the latter seems far more likely. Remember: